Re: [Blockchain-interop] Scope of Work

[Rafael André Pestana Belchior <[e-mail]>]

Hello All,
Great to e-meet you.

The fact that G1 signs the payload using its key-pair is a good start to 
ensure accountability. We need to discuss if the protocol should assure 
accountability in case of dispute, or if it suffices to coordinate 
communication.

Cheers,
--rafael

A 2020-10-13 20:47, Thomas Hardjono escreveu:
> Hi Aetienne,
> 
>>> Regarding the scope: I was wondering whether we
>>> should also include other interoperability issues apart
>>> from asset transfers, such as referencing data
>>> between blockchains (or from a blockchain to a legacy system)?
> 
> Yes, for sure -- the model describes in the architecture draft calls
> these references and data (on-chain and off-chain) generically as
> "blockchain resources".
> 
> For example, if a third party entity is used to "price"  a virtual
> asset (e.g. economic pricing or estimate done by a bank or FI) prior
> to the asset transfer, then the transfer-payload between G1 and G2
> could (must) include a link (e.g. URL or hash) to the claim signed by
> the  third party.
> 
> This means that G1 must sign the payload using its entity public key
> pair (not the transaction public key pair).  Here G1 (i.e. the VASP
> owner of G1) is essentially asserting the truthfulness of the link to
> the resource.
> 
> Best
> 
> 
> -- thomas --
> 
> 
> 
> ________________________________________
> From: Blockchain-interop [[e-mail]] on
> behalf of [e-mail] [[e-mail]]
> Sent: Tuesday, October 13, 2020 2:45 PM
> To: [e-mail]
> Subject: [Blockchain-interop] Scope of Work
> 
> Hi all, great meeting you all in today's kickoff call!
> 
> Regarding the scope: I was wondering whether we should also include
> other interoperability issues apart from asset transfers, such as
> referencing data between blockchains (or from a blockchain to a legacy
> system)?
> 
> The reason why I'm asking is because a new DLT law is expected to
> enter into force in Switzerland next year, which will require that for
> all DLT-based financial instruments corresponding investor
> documentation (e.g. prospectus) shall be made available either
> directly on the given ledger or by referring to an outside data
> storage (which could be a legacy system as mentioned on slide 10 point
> 2). The latter case obviously creates an interoperability problem. So
> far the legislator has only outlined that there needs to be a unique
> pointer/identifier (e.g. a hash of the document), to ensure integrity
> of the accompanying external documentation. But apart from that there
> are currently no specific technical guidelines on how an interoperable
> on-/off-ledger pointer mechanism shall work. IMO our IETF working
> group could be a great platform to discuss and provide some guidance.
> What do you think?
> 
> Best regards
> Aetienne

-- 
Rafael Belchior
Ph.D. student in Computer Science and Engineering, Blockchain - Técnico
Lisboa
https://rafaelapb.github.io/
https://www.linkedin.com/in/rafaelpbelchior/